Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:28 am**

seeds wrote: Two – As per item one, in what I call “true reality,” there are no strange and bizarre subdivisions of life, such as angels, or demons, or Satan, or hell, or any other such “old paradigm” nonsense as depicted below:

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:35 pm Do you believe in the Great Chain of Being? If so, where does it begin and end?

Nick,

Clearly, you and I have a slightly different interpretation of Panentheism, so let's just lay it all out there as we see it and sort it out later in the wash.

When it comes to our particular universe, which could merely be one of a possible infinity of other universes...

...I believe that the Great Chain of Being (the “GCoB”) is represented in precisely the way I depicted it in the following illustration...

Within the context of the closed bubble of reality that we call our universe...

(which, according to my Berkeleyanish form of Panentheism, is the closed and subjective dimension of God’s personal mind and consciousness)

...the GCoB begins with God’s central consciousness (his “I Am-ness”) occupying the top rung of the ladder.

The next rung descending downward from God’s rung would be humans (his literal “offspring”).

From that point, the ladder descends downward into the various and distinct levels of animal consciousness (which includes mammalian, avian, amphibian, reptilian, and fish consciousness, etc.), down to insects – to plants - to microbes, until finally reaching inanimate matter.

(Keep in mind that in the same way that your own thoughts and dreams are “alive” because they are saturated with your own personal life essence, and exist only because you and your mind exist, likewise, so is the “inanimate matter” throughout the universe “alive” because it is founded upon God's existence.)

(Continued in next post)
_______

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:29 am**

_______

(Continued from prior post)

With the preceding post in mind, let’s break-down the “old paradigm” description of the Great Chain of Being (or “scala naturae”) that you offered earlier:

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:35 pm
Without getting into details do you sense any truth in this ancient idea?

http://www.esotericonline.net/profiles/ ... n-of-being

The great chain of being (Latin: scala naturae, literally "ladder/stair-way of nature"), is a concept derived from Plato, Aristotle, and Proclus. It details a strict, religious hierarchical structure of all matter and life, believed to have been decreed by God. The chain starts from God and progresses downward to angels, demons (fallen/renegade angels), stars, moon, kings, princes, nobles, men, wild animals, domesticated animals, trees, other plants, precious stones, precious metals, and other minerals………………………….

As per the above quote - “...The chain starts from God and progresses downward...”

So far, so good.

“...to angels, demons (fallen/renegade angels)...”

As I stated in an earlier post (here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=22608&start=45#p326634), in “true reality” there are no strange and bizarre subdivisions of life such as angels and demons.

Again, that is old paradigm fantasy and nonsense that has absolutely no place in the new paradigm.

Continuing downward to “...stars, moon...”

Stars and moons should be perceived as residing at the bottom of the GCoB hierarchy, in that they are merely composed of the unconscious (yet “living”) fabric of God’s mind that enables and supports the existence of the higher rungs of consciousness.

Continuing on to “...kings, princes, nobles, men...”

There is nothing special about kings, princes, or nobles that differentiates them from men (humanity) in general. They all occupy the same rung on the GCoB.

Continuing downward to “...wild animals, domesticated animals...”

Animals occupy a wide range of levels on the descending ladder of being. Take your pick as to which ones are either above or below each other. Clearly (to me, anyway), a dog is way above a toad, for example, as a toad is way above a fly, and as a fly is way above an amoeba.

Continuing down to “...trees, other plants...”

Not too far off as long as you keep going downward to microorganisms (amoebas and such).

Continuing down to “...precious stones, precious metals, and other minerals...”

Again, as in the case of stars and moons, the precious stones, precious metals, and other minerals are simply a part of the unconscious (yet living) fabric of God’s mind that reside at the bottom of the GCoB, like rocks or sand, etc..

Now the whole reason for my point-by-point break-down of that “old paradigm” vision of the Great Chain of Being was to weed-out, not only the ancient and mythological fantasy of angels and demons, but to correct the nonsense that kings, princes, and nobles (or Pharaohs, or Caesars, or Presidents, etc.) are any different from the rest of us.

In fact, if you want to understand what I believe is a more accurate vision of the “scala naturae” within the context of just the human rung itself, then check out the following illustrations:

(As always, for a clearer vision of the dialogue, click on the following link and expand the image. http://theultimateseeds.com/Images/7%20 ... evised.jpg)
_______

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:32 am**

seeds wrote:Albert Einstein: “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who–in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’– cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

He's talking about ex-theists, some of us have never had these chains.

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:49 am**

seeds wrote:I think that faith and hope are somewhat synonymous. ...

How so, one is that you believe and the other that that you don't.

However, so what?

If you want to reach this audience of yours I think you ought to grasp what they believe and why.

Sanguine about what?

About answers to life after death, etc.

I’m not sure you understand the irony of your argument, for it seems that the more poverty and misery there is within the human condition, the more it convinces some humans that God does not exist, because he’s not doing anything about it. ...

The problem is that it's sold along with the idea that 'God' has a plan and there's a reason for your poverty and misery. That you are lower down the chain of being so accept your lot, etc.

Whereas if we were experiencing some kind of utopian paradise here on earth, it may have the opposite affect on us.

I think we'd pretty much give up worrying about it other than over cakes and tea.

seeds wrote:I don’t have any religious “leaders.”

Why do you think that is possible for you?

Please stop painting all metaphysical thinkers with your wide brush. ...

You mean religious metaphysical thinkers and by and large you are all painting the same story.

seeds wrote:Then I guess it’s their “audience” that I’m after.

That's why I think they won't care as you are not of faith.

seeds wrote:Sure you are.

Not really, I just don't have a belief in your 'God/s', what you believe is up to you.

Indeed, if you are a hardcore materialist/atheist who absolutely denies the possibility of the existence of a higher intelligence being responsible for the creation of the universe, then you are selling an “unspoken” nihilistic ideology that implies that not only is the universe the result of serendipitous processes, but that life is a “fluke” and has no ultimate long term purpose for us as individuals. ...

I don't deny it, I just don't have a belief in it.

I think 'life' is a reification, there are just living things.

Given you think 'All' is one substance you are a materialist?

What I can't figure out is why in the world are you so dead-set against me trying to “sell” the idea that every human who has ever awakened into life since the beginning of humanity itself (which includes you), has been given a (“no strings attached”) gift that is so amazing that in must be kept hidden from us until death?...

You mean put up with the misery and poverty and you'll get a prize when you die?

...(again, “new” paradigm here).

If I am right and the atheists are wrong, then the truth will be “born out” in time (pun intended) and we’ll all have a good laugh about it, because we’ll all still be alive and capable of laughter.

On the other hand, if the atheists are right and I am wrong, then we’ll all just drift off into eternal oblivion and none of this will have mattered. ...

I have no idea why you think not having a belief in a 'God' means nothing matters?

Come on now Auk, it should be obvious that I am not trying to “sell” the same old nonsense that has already been rejected by atheists...

...(at the very least, it’s some new nonsense).

Not really, it's been around for thousands of years in a few religions.

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:16 am**

Nick:

Simone Weil wrote "There is a reality outside the world …”

So There has always been this minority like Einstein and Simone who recognize the ineffable source but do not believe in a personal god. The trouble is that those like you are incapable of distinguishing the difference so just exhibit blind denial as an expression of habit.

Quoting Weil saying there is a reality outside the world and then tying her together with Einstein, who denies a reality outside the world, as if they are in agreement shows a lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.

Davidm is right:

The trouble with you is that you have no clue what Einstein was talking about.

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:59 am**

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:16 am Nick:

Simone Weil wrote "There is a reality outside the world …”

So There has always been this minority like Einstein and Simone who recognize the ineffable source but do not believe in a personal god. The trouble is that those like you are incapable of distinguishing the difference so just exhibit blind denial as an expression of habit.
Quoting Weil saying there is a reality outside the world and then tying her together with Einstein, who denies a reality outside the world, as if they are in agreement shows a lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.

Davidm is right:

The trouble with you is that you have no clue what Einstein was talking about.

No. Einstein's God was Spinoza's God and if so he was a Panentheist

I will speak on the three subjects on which you desire me to disclose my sentiments, and tell you, first, that my opinion concerning God differs widely from that which is ordinarily defended by modern Christians. For I hold that God is of all things the cause immanent, as the phrase is, not transient. I say that all things are in God and move in God, thus agreeing with Paul, and, perhaps, with all the ancient philosophers, though the phraseology may be different; I will even venture to affirm that I agree with all the ancient Hebrews, in so far as one may judge from their traditions, though these are in many ways corrupted. The supposition of some, that I endeavour to prove in the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus [TPT] the unity of God and Nature (meaning by the latter a certain mass or corporeal matter), is wholly erroneous.

As regards miracles, I am of opinion that the revelation of God can only be established by the wisdom of the doctrine, not by miracles, or in other words by ignorance. This I have shown at sufficient length in Chapter 6 [TPT] concerning miracles. I will here only add, that I make this chief distinction between religion and superstition, that the latter is founded on ignorance, the former on knowledge; this, I take it, is the reason why Christians are distinguished from the rest of the world, not by faith, nor by charity, nor by the other fruits of the Holy Spirit, but solely by their opinions, inasmuch as they defend their cause, like everyone else, by miracles, that is by ignorance, which is the source of all malice; thus they turn a faith, which may be true, into superstition.

Lastly, in order to disclose my opinions on the third point, I will tell you that I do not think it necessary for salvation to know Christ according to the flesh: but with regard to the Eternal Son of God, that is the Eternal Wisdom of God, which has manifested itself in all things and especially in the human mind, and above all in Christ Jesus, the case is far otherwise. For without this no one can come to a state of blessedness, inasmuch as it alone teaches, what is true or false, good or evil. And, inasmuch as this wisdom was made especially manifest through Christ Jesus, as I have said, His disciples preached it, in so far as it was revealed to them through Him, and thus showed that they could rejoice in that spirit of Christ more than the rest of mankind. The doctrines added by certain churches, such as that God took upon Himself human nature, I have expressly said that I do not understand; in fact, to speak the truth, they seem to me no less absurd than would a statement, that a circle had taken upon itself the nature of a square. This I think will be sufficient explanation of my opinions concerning the three points mentioned. Whether it will be satisfactory to Christians you will know better than I...

Spinoza, Letter 21

For I hold that God is of all things the cause immanent, as the phrase is, not transient. I say that all things are in God and move in God, thus agreeing with Paul, and, perhaps, with all the ancient philosophers, though the phraseology may be different;

God is immanent but at the same time we move within God. God is more than nature. This is panentheism. Einstein and Simone would not object.

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:59 am**

Nick wrote:

No. Einstein's God was Spinoza's God and if so he was a Panentheist

I have read that some people regard Spinoza as a panentheist . I can't see it.

Nick, I suspect that you dont know that, for Spinoza, God and nature are the same; and that the way to understand nature is the way of reason, not revelation.

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:51 am**

Here's a letter that Einstein wrote a year before his death. Make of it what you will. Whatever he may have thought during his life, and frankly, it's only loons that never change their minds, by the end of it, he seemed pretty clear:

Princeton, 3. 1. 1954

Dear Mr Gutkind,

Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."

Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization" in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.

With friendly thanks and best wishes,

Yours,

A. Einstein

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/wo ... kness.html

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:31 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:59 am Nick wrote:

No. Einstein's God was Spinoza's God and if so he was a Panentheist
I have read that some people regard Spinoza as a panentheist . I can't see it.

Nick, I suspect that you dont know that, for Spinoza, God and nature are the same; and that the way to understand nature is the way of reason, not revelation.

Nick, I suspect that you dont know that, for Spinoza, God and nature are the same; and that the way to understand nature is the way of reason, not revelation.

For Panentheism God is both in nature and transcendent. Nature is a machine and a person understands mechanics through reason. God is pure consciousness. Becoming sensitive to consciousness requires conscious attention which results in revelation. Spinoza and Plotinus amongst others understood the necessary transition from reason into intuition. Secularism digs its heels in on dialectic. It must. Opening to intuition threatens the dominance of secularism.

“Knowledge has three degrees – opinion, science, illumination. The means or instrument of the first is sense; of the second, dialectic; of the third, intuition.”
— Plotinus

[ 1. Knowledge of the First Kind, Opinion or Imagination:]

From particular things represented to our intellect fragmentarily, confusedly, and without order through our senses; I have settled to call such perceptions by the name of knowledge from the mere suggestions of experience.

From symbols, e.g., from the fact of having read or heard certain words we remember things and form certain ideas concerning them, similar to those through which we imagine things. I shall call both these ways of regarding things knowledge of the first kind, opinion, or imagination.

[ 2. Knowledge of the Second Kind, Reason:]

From the fact that we have notions common to all men, and adequate ideas of the properties of things; this I call reason and knowledge of the second kind.

[ 3. Knowledge of the Third Kind, Intuition (direct, non-inferential knowledge):]

Besides these two kinds of knowledge, there is, as I will hereafter show, a third kind of knowledge, which we will call intuition. This kind of knowledge proceeds from an adequate idea of the absolute essence of certain attributes of God to the adequate knowledge of the essence of things.

Spinoza, The Ethics

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:50 pm**

Nick:

No. Einstein's God was Spinoza's God and if so he was a Panentheist.

First, Einstein describes Spinoza as a pantheist. Second, he has difficulties with identifying himself as a pantheist.

The following quotes are from Wiki Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein:

When asked if he was a pantheist Einstein said:

Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist … I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism.

Elsewhere he said:

I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

And:

Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. [...] This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza)

But:

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

From Spinoza’s Ethics:

That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists (Part IV, Preface).

There is only one substance according to Spinoza. In the letter you quote where he says that he does not endeavour to prove the unity of God and Nature, that is because they are not two different substances or things that need to be unified. Nature is not “a kind of mass or corporeal matter”. Nature is not passive matter acted upon by God. The action of nature is the action of God, natura naturans.

Nick:

Nature is a machine and a person understands mechanics through reason. God is pure consciousness. Becoming sensitive to consciousness requires conscious attention which results in revelation. Spinoza and Plotinus amongst others understood the necessary transition from reason into intuition. Secularism digs its heels in on dialectic. It must. Opening to intuition threatens the dominance of secularism.

You are way off here with regard to Spinoza. Nature is not a machine. Intuition as he uses the term has nothing to do with becoming sensitive to consciousness or revelation. There is no transition from reason into intuition. Intuition is what follows necessarily from knowledge determined by reason.

[ 3. Knowledge of the Third Kind, Intuition (direct, non-inferential knowledge):]

Besides these two kinds of knowledge, there is, as I will hereafter show, a third kind of knowledge, which we will call intuition. This kind of knowledge proceeds from an adequate idea of the absolute essence of certain attributes of God to the adequate knowledge of the essence of things.

This cannot be understood if you do not know what Spinoza means by an adequate idea.

PROP. XXXIV. Every idea, which in us is absolute or adequate and perfect, is true.

Intuition proceeds from what is true. What is true, what we have an absolute or adequate and perfect idea of, is, according to the second kind of knowledge, determined by reason. Intuition means “direct, non-inferential knowledge”, what follows necessarily from adequate ideas.

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:08 pm**

Nick, just in case you did not understand what Fooloso4 told you I add my short comment.

Nick, you wrote:

For Panentheism God is both in nature and transcendent.

For Spinoza nature is the only substance: there is no substance which transcends nature: God and nature are the same.

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:41 pm**

Belinda:

For Spinoza nature is the only substance: there is no substance which transcends nature: God and nature are the same.

'Substance', according to Spinoza, is 'ousia', that is, being, its essence (literally the "what it is").

It also important to re-emphasize that Spinoza is guided by reason. Intuition, as the term is used albeit differently by Spinoza and Einstein, is not a spiritual or mystical insight or revelation. Intuition does not occur in a vacuum, it is not a matter of attentiveness to consciousness but rather for Spinoza it is an attentiveness to what follows with logical necessity from adequate ideas. For Einstein it is attentiveness to theory and facts.

In the short essay "Induction and Deduction" Einstein says:

The intuitive grasp of the essentials or a large complex of facts leads the scientist to the postulation of a hypothetical basic law, or several such basic laws. From the basic law (system of axioms) he derives his conclusion as completely as possible in a purely logically deductive manner. These conclusions, derived from the basic law (and often only after time-consuming developments and calculations), can then be compared to experience, and in this manner provide criteria for the justification of the assumed basic law. Basic law (axioms) and conclusions together for what is called a “theory.”

Thus, a theory can very well be found to be incorrect if there is a logical error in its deduction, or found to be off the mark if a fact is not in consonance with one of its conclusions. But the truth of a theory can never be proven. For one never knows if future experience will contradict its conclusion; and furthermore there are always other conceptual systems imaginable which might coordinate the very same facts. When two theories are available and both are compatible with the given arsenal of facts, then there are no other criteria to prefer one over the other besides the intuitive eye of the researcher. In this manner one can understand sagacious scientists, cognizant of both—theories and facts—can still be passionate adherents of opposing theories.

The intuitive grasp of the essentials of a large complex of facts does not mean an insight into the truth of the matter. It is more like a hunch or artistic inspiration, the forming of a picture of what might possibly be the case . Intuition may lead the scientist to endorse a theory or an opposing theory. Whether either theory is correct is not determined by intuition. Intuition may lead the scientist to prefer one theory over another, but the theory is always tentative and must withstand the test of time.

So, Spinoza and Einstein are using the term ‘intuition’ in very different senses, but neither in the sense that Nick is using the term.

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:25 pm**

Regarding Fooloso4's post about intuition, Antonio Damasio has shown how intuitive behaviour is related to brain structures.

Regarding ontic substance I do hesitate to use the term because it is confusingly the same word as for chemical substance. I'm happy with ontic 'substance', however I do wonder if it's better not to use the term on these discussions and use 'being' instead.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:57 am**

Belinda

For Spinoza nature is the only substance: there is no substance which transcends nature: God and nature are the same.

http://home.earthlink.net/~tneff/index.html

Click on Introduction and then on “Spinoza Study Keys by Frederick Kettner”

Spinoza's conception of God presupposes that man has the capacity to think or to understand the reality of the attributes. The idea of God becomes, then, the idea of the attributes, and as God is substance consisting of infinite attributes, it follows that the understanding of the doctrine of the infinite attributes is of primary significance to an adequate understanding of Spinoza's Ethics. Pure ethics has the idea of God, or the doctrine of the attributes, as its foundation. "Whatever is," says Spinoza, "is in God, and nothing can either be or be conceived without God." (I 15). Also, if we are to understand the idea of God as the key to all the other problems presented in Spinoza's works, we must know that "God and all his attributes are eternal." (I 19).
Many students have endeavored to understand Spinoza's doctrine of the attributes but without success. The true secret of the attributes will remain hidden as long as Spinozaism continues to be confused with pantheism and rationalism, or with other such conceptions which are not concerned with essentialities, but are limited to imaginations and generalities.
According to Spinoza, we may form ideas of individual objects merely by using our senses. This kind of perception, of course, does not present things to us in their logical order. Spinoza calls this kind of knowledge "imagination." Yet, it is possible for man to form adequate ideas of the properties of things by understanding what these things have in common. This is the scientific kind of knowledge, or as Spinoza calls it, "reason." Spinoza, however, speaks of yet a third kind of knowledge which he calls "intuition," and which, according to him, helps us to advance from an adequate idea of the nature of God's attributes to the true understanding and realization of the essence of things.
Most students of Spinoza fail to perceive the significance of the central idea of his Ethics because they limit themselves to the first and second kinds of knowledge (imagination and reason), and do not make use of intuition. This last kind of knowledge alone enables us to understand the essence of Nature in the light of eternity (sub specie aeternitatis). Imaginative and abstract interpretations fail to do so, because they explain only the modifications and not the true nature of Substance or God, or that which is the same, the idea of the infinite attributes.

Since you’ve studied Spinoza, are you familiar with what Spinoza means by attributes or the essence of things? Do you dispute the contention here that if we limit ourselves to imagination and reason we remain being incapable of understanding the essence of nature in the context of eternal attributes.Do you see what is meant by intuition?If you are open to it, I’ll continue down into the article including the concept of ONE and ask if you agree or disagree.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:02 am**

Here is some art i did as a confirmed Panentheist:-

This is the UK to scale, I re land denotes the British empire taking to the shore and spreading the common protocol of Earth - English, which a sage instructed me was not formed naturally but via this God
Notice the location of the 'Isle of Man':-

Brazil, Natal is a town on the nipple - of or relating to childbirth, Chill up you spine - Chile:-

Mount Sinai is where Moses received the commandments - from my experience of God - it is like an A.I.- smack between the fingers of 'peace':-

The Alpha-Bet - we use is interestingly balanced between the consonants and vowels - leave 'e' energy at the top - AI - UO - energy.

Eating from the Tree of Know_ledge - of Good and Evil - from experience where i have experienced God's evil - and plenty of good - its DRUGS:-

A more detailed explanation of the depths of the English lan_gauge can be found here my site:- www.androcies.com

Philosophy Now Forum

Panentheism

Re: Panentheism

Re: Panentheism

Re: Panentheism

Re: Panentheism

Re: Panentheism

Re: Panentheism

Re: Panentheism

Re: Panentheism

Re: Panentheism

Re: Panentheism

Re: Panentheism

Re: Panentheism

Re: Panentheism

Re: Panentheism

Re: Panentheism